9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther no separate deduction for payments made to the Mukadam and transport contractor was claimed by the Respondent-Assessee. - Decided against revenue TDS liability on payment made as bakshish - Held that:- Both the CIT(A) as well as Tribunal have found as a matter of fact that the payment made as bakshish as an individual, did not exceed to threshold limit of ₹ 20,000/under Section 194C( 5) of the Act. No occasion to deduct the tax at source would arise - Decided against revenue - Income Tax Appeal No. 480 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 8-1-2018 - M. S. Sanklecha And Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ. Mr. Sham Walve, for the Appellant Mr. J. D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sameer Dalal, for the Respondent ORDER P.C. This App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctors as it was payment made on behalf of the sugarcane farmer. This amount was out of the purchase price payable to sugarcane farmer for delivery of sugar at the factory gate. No separate deduction was even claimed for the aforesaid payment to harvesting and transport contractor. It was a payment made on behalf of the farmer and deducted (taken into account) while paying the price to sugarcane farmers. Therefore, it was a mere facilitator. However, the Assessing Officer not being satisfied with the Respondent's explanation for failing to deduct TDS, disallowed the entire payments made to the harvesting and transport contractor under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act; (b) Being aggrieved, Respondent filed an appeal before the CIT(A). By a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to reach the sugar crop to the factory and bear the harvesting and transportation charges. We further find from the details furnished by the assessee as well as the finding given by the CIT(A) that the harvesting and transportation cost paid by the assessee have not been claimed as separate deduction by the Assessee, over and above the price paid for sugarcane. In fact all such expenses of harvesting and transportation are included in the cane purchase price account only. (d) The aforesaid concurrent finding of facts by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that the harvesting and transportation charges form the part of the purchase price of the sugarcane payable to the farmer by the assessee . It found that only for the sake of convenience ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harvesting and transport contractor are on behalf of the Sugarcane farmers, is a part of the price payable to them. Further no separate deduction for payments made to the Mukadam and transport contractor was claimed by the RespondentAssessee. Therefore, the above decision does not assist the Revenue; (g) In the above view, on account of concurrent findings of fact which are not shown to be perverse, the question (a) does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 4 Re. Question (b): (a) It is an admitted position between the parties that both the CIT(A) as well as Tribunal have found as a matter of fact that the payment made as bakshish as an individual, did not exceed to threshold limit of ₹ 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
